getSpreadOpenOrders

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying 'real-time' and that only active (unfilled or partially filled) orders are returned, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or scope of returned orders.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the active-order definition earns its place by clarifying the return scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only query with no required parameters, the description is enough for a basic no-argument call. However, with 6 undocumented parameters and no output schema, it leaves gaps around pagination (cursor/limit), filtering semantics, and whose orders are returned, which an agent would need for advanced or correct filtered invocations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the 6 parameters: limit, cursor, symbol, orderId, baseCoin, and orderLinkId are all left to their bare names. An agent gets no guidance on how to combine filters or what format identifiers should take.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Query real-time open orders for spread trading combinations.' It also defines what counts as active ('unfilled or partially filled'), and the 'spread' scope clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like getOpenOrders and history tools like getSpreadOrderHistory.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: for current, active spread-combination orders rather than historical or non-spread orders. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.